Suganthi v. The State Rep By Its,

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 02.11.2022 for the alleged offence under Sections 420 & 506(i) I.P.C. in Crime No.21 of 2022 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant's son is a B.E. Graduate appeared for 2018-2019 TNPSC group 1 and 2 exams. While so, the petitioner's colleague A7 said to have introduced A6 making the defacto complainant to believe that the said A6 is highly influenced person with the officials, thereby they can secure a Government job for his son and received a sum of Rs.3500/- from the defacto complainant. Thereafter, A6 and A7 took him to a private clinic and introduced to A4, wherein he paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to A4 for securing job for his son, thereby all the accused made him to believe that they can secure job with their source of contact with higher officials. On such belief, he paid totally a sum of Rs.20,42,000/- to this petitioner. However, when the results were

published by TNPSC, his son name was not found and later he questioned the same with the petitioner, she promised him that she or her husband will repay the entire amount, but she failed to pay it, thereby she cheated the defacto complainant. Hence, the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she is 54 years old women, who is merely a home maker and taking care of her family. He would submit there is no specific overtact attributed against the petitioner and she has not at all committed any offence as alleged by the respondent police and she is no way connected with the occurrence. He would further submit that the investigation is almost completed and that the petitioner has been suffering incarceration from 24.10.2022. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for respondent would submit that totally, there are 4 accused involved in this case and the petitioner is arrayed as A1. He would submit that oiginally she was an employee of TNPSC and by making false promise of obtaining job

in TNPSC, and obtained money with the said promise, however, she was removed from service. He would also submit that if she is released on bail, she will tamper the witnesses and hamper the investigation and the investigation is not yet completed. Hence, he vehemently opposed to grant bail to the petitioner.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by both counsel and also considering gravity of offence committed by the petitioner by giving false promise to get a job in TNPSC, and now she is removed from service and she is having four previous cases and a detailed investigation is required in this case and also considering the fact that there is possibility of tampering the witnesses and hampering the investigation, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. 15.12.2022 rpp

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

rpp 15.12.2022